2001

Re: King John

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1319  Friday, 1 June 2001

From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 12:32:21 -0400
Subject: 12.1307 Re: King John
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1307 Re: King John

Jack Heller asks where Prince Henry in King John has been until the last
scenes. And John Jowett gives a technical answer -- lack of boys in the
acting company. Another answer is that Henry's place has been taken by
the Bastard who performs all the tasks of a prince for John, and may
consider (see 5.5) taking the throne. Henry appears at play's end to
displace him once again.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1318  Friday, 1 June 2001

From:           Jennifer Ailles <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 13:12:31 -0400
Subject:        Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare

**Apologies For Cross-Posting**

Dear List Members:

As part of an extended research project entitled "Canadian Adaptations
of Shakespeare," directed by Professor Daniel Fischlin (University of
Guelph) and funded by an Ontario Premier's Research Excellence Award, I
am currently helping to compile a bibliographic archive of Canadian
theatrical adaptations of Shakespeare.  In particular, I am looking for
information, especially production details, regarding any and all plays
based on Shakespeare's works that have been written and/or adapted by
Canadians.

Our working definition of "adaptation" is broad and includes any usage
or alteration of a Shakespearean work--including stagings, performances,
and any form of reference or revision of Shakespearean source
materials.  Similarly, our working definition of "Canadian" is also
broad and meant to be more inclusive than not.

If you or your theatre company have written, adapted, directed, and/or
produced any works that you feel would qualify as Canadian adaptations
of Shakespeare please contact me at <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>.

Moreover, if you know someone else who may be able to help with this
request, please do not hesitate to forward this email to them.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Ailles

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: Why Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1316  Friday, 1 June 2001

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 31 May 2001 18:08:12 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1272 Re: Why Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 31 May 2001 19:20:46 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1292 Re: Why Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 18:08:12 +0100
Subject: 12.1272 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1272 Re: Why Shakespeare

Sam Small wrote

> My point is general rather than particular, and, being no expert
> on miss Greer's career writing I would obviously get details
> about her wrong.

Details such as her title. If you're going to use one, 'Professor' Greer
would be correct. (To clarify because it isn't the case everywhere:
where Greer works only the most senior academics have this title.)

> My general thrust, which I believe to be sound, is that an
> adherent of any particular political credo or religious
> philosophy would not write a play where the cherished
> school of thought is proved wrong/bad/indefensible/
> immoral/stupid.

A 'credo' is a position of faith and thus should be associated with
religion (not politics as you have it) and likewise philosophy's
dependence on hard thinking makes it more properly connected with
politics than religion.

As to Sam's thrust: Dostoyevsky, surely, gives the anti-Christians the
better arguments despite his adherence to that religion. Witness the
debate between Alyosha (a would-be priest) and his brother Ivan (a
soldier) in chapter 4 of The Brothers Karamazov. A crucial moment is
Ivan's question:

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object
of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but
that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny
creature-that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and
to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be
the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Susan St. John <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 19:20:46 -0700
Subject: 12.1292 Re: Why Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1292 Re: Why Shakespeare

>As a student of literature
>himself, he knew the power of obscurity of meaning to attract close
>reading, and he took every opportunity to exploit that power.
>
>I don't buy the Toaist Shakespeare for a minute.  He makes it quite
>clear in the sonnets how highly he values the eternal fame that only
>literature can provide, and nowhere as in the sonnets does he exploit
>the instrument of obscurity so thoroughly.  The uninterest in
>publication of one's works was a conventional pose of the literary
>culture of the period.  While the disclaimers of some: (I didn't intend
>to publish this, but the double dealings of unscrupulous printers forced
>my hand) are transparent, Shakespeare the master dramatist played his
>part so convincingly that it is commonly accepted today that the author
>who wrote Not marble, nor the gilded monuments of princes shall oulive
>this powerful rhyme, couldn't care less if his sonnets or Hamlet was
>ever published.

I don't think Clifford intended it this way, but this is probably the
best argument I've heard for the notion that WS didn't actually write
the plays himself...someone more educated who didn't want to be found
publishing his own stuff had it done under Will's name!

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: Tragic Hero

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1317  Friday, 1 June 2001

From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 18:40:05 +0100 (BST)
Subject:        re: Tragic Hero

It is probably my fault, rather than Hardy's, that the Tragic Hero
message had to be sent twice today and that my own posting was plagued
by random exclamation marks, hard returns in the middle of words, and
the occasional removal of sections of text so that some of my points
were a little mangled.  I not only wrote an abnormally long post, but
was also forced to send it via a web based E-Mail service rather than
from the normal E-Mail software on my home machine.

Fortunately, I think, the deletions were placed in such a way that it
was fairly obvious what I was trying to say, and nothing hugely
significant was lost.  Should anybody be desperate to read the complete
posting without these errors, please E-Mail me and I will forward a copy
to you when I get home (early next week).

Apologies for the mangled condition of my posting.

Thomas Larque.

[Editor's Note: My apologies to Thomas. The problem was that listserv
limits the number of characters to a line. This posting arrived with all
paragraphs one-line long. When the character limit was reached, an
exclamation mark was inserted and the remaining text followed again
until the character limit was reached and so on. I thought that I had
caught the majority of lines arriving as such; I guess I did not. But as
you may have noticed, traffic on the list has been more than unusually
high of late. The reason for the resending is also technical. For
reasons that I shall not go into here, I use the Netscape 3 browser to
send messages intended for the entire list to listserv. This browser has
a message text limit, which is seldom exceeded. Because of the length of
this digest, Mike's posting was truncated and Karen's not sent. If I
send a long file as an attachment, I do not have this problem. --Hardy]

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Re: Ungentle Shakespeare

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1315  Friday, 1 June 2001

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 31 May 2001 16:19:44 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1295 Re: Ungentle Shakespeare

[2]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 31 May 2001 21:56:55
        Subj:   Re: Ungentle Shakespeare


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 16:19:44 +0100
Subject: 12.1295 Re: Ungentle Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1295 Re: Ungentle Shakespeare

If you happen to know an Arden rep, there are some apt marketing
freebies on the go for this.  Let's just say that I couldn't conceive of
anything funnier.  ((c) Keneth Williams)

Jonathan Hope
Strathclyde University, Glasgow

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 31 May 2001 21:56:55
Subject:        Re: Ungentle Shakespeare

You can find Jonathan Bate's review in the Sunday Telegraph (22 April
2001).

Duncan-Jones is one of the speakers at our forthcoming conference "New
Directions in Biographies of Shakespeare, Marlowe and Jonson". Many
other distinguished scholars will participate in this conference. Due to
fire regulations, the number of delegates we can hold at King Edward VI
School is limited. Please visit the conference website listed below.

Takashi Kozuka

*******************************************************************
"New Directions in Biographies of Shakespeare, Marlowe and Jonson"
   < http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/ren/new_directions.htm >
*******************************************************************

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.